Lomborg Skewers Pact’s Horrific Costs for Mere 0.086 Degrees Fahrenheit
Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author, environmentalist, and professor of political science and philosophy, says “Politicians will vaunt U.N. treaty, but its costs far outweigh its meager benefits.” In an op-ed today for USA Today, entitled “Climate change is real, but Paris treaty won’t fix it,” Dr. Lomborg writes:
The Paris accord talks a big game. It doesn’t just commit to capping the global temperature increase at 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The text goes even further and says the world’s leaders commit to keeping the increase “well below 2 degrees Celsius” and will try to cap it at 1.5 degrees Celsius.
But this is just rhetoric. My own research and the only peer-reviewed published assessment of the Paris agreement used the United Nation’s favorite climate model to measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every major carbon-cutting promise in the treaty between now and 2030. I found that the total temperature reduction will be just 0.086 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
Not 6 degrees. Not 4 degrees. Not 2 degrees. Not even 1 degree. Only 0.086 degrees. That’s 86 thousandths of a degree! That’s certainly worth the trillions of dollars the UN globalists want to spend, right? It is if you understand Figueres, Edenhofer, and others who have admitted their plan is to restructure, reconfigure, transform, and redistribute — it “has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy.”
Lomborg, whose 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist is still causing waves, writes in his Earth Day op-ed: “Even if these promises were extended for 70 more years, then all the promises will reduce temperature rises by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. This is similar to a finding by scientists at MIT. It’s feeble.”
Worse than feeble — and mind-bogglingly costly to boot. “This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world,” says Lomborg. “U.S. promises alone — to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 — would reduce gross domestic product more than $150 billion annually.”
“Trying to cut carbon dioxide, even with an efficient carbon tax, will make cheap energy more expensive — and this will slow economic growth,” he notes. “Green technology is still very inefficient (which is why it still requires significant subsidies).”
Neverthelerss, President Obama and the AGW alarm choir continue to insist that we must ignore the science and the economics in a mad rush to adopt one of the most far-reaching schemes ever contemplated to regiment and control all humanity.